People of good will

Both Shakes and Atrios take issue with the faux inclusive phrase "People of Faith." As Atrios puts it:

"People of Faith," despite its general acceptance as an inclusive term, is actually an exclusionary one, not just against nonbelievers like myself, but also against other non-dominant religions in which the concept of "faith," while usually present in some form, doesn't play a central role.

The context here was Mitt Romney's saying that, "We need to have a person of faith lead the country," only to find himself, shortly thereafter, the subject of a smear campaign based on the particulars of his great-great grandfather's Mormon faith.

Romney's full statement —

"One of the great things about this great land is we have people of different faiths and different persuasions. And I am convinced that the nation does need to have people of different faiths, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country."

— reminded me of President Dwight Eisenhower's comment that, "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith — and I don't care what it is."

Such statements are obviously exclusive toward people of no faith. By explicitly excluding only those of that minority persuasion ("First they came for …") such statements might seem otherwise inclusive, which is how they are intended to sound. But this appeal to a squishy, contentless "faith" — this "kind of very comprehensive supreme being, Seeger-type thing"* — also excludes those of us who believe that the substance of faith matters more than the depth of personal sentiment.

A bigger problem for Romney is that he takes the phrase "person of faith" at face value instead of recognizing that this is a dog-whistle term — a code-word for "Christians like us and the few Jews who agree to play by our rules." This is another example of nominally religious language that also carries a great deal of unspoken cultural/political meaning.

Romney seems to hope that this phrase will endear him to the so-called "values voters" — to use another phrase that means both more and less than it does on its face. "Values voters" does not mean "people who vote according to their moral values" any more than "people of faith" means "people whose lives are shaped by their religious faith." (As Shakes sardonically notes, "ask Keith Ellison about that.")

These phrases, when spoken to members of the religious right, both mean the same thing: People like you. As such they carry both a particular religious meaning — certain kinds of Christians and Jews, and a particular cultural/political meaning — antiabortion, antigay. Romney only meets the cultural/political portion of this (and that only suspiciously recently), so his faith isn't enough to qualify him as a "person of faith." As an evangelical Christian, I would qualify as far as the religious meaning, but I wouldn't pass the cultural/political portion of the test.**

But the biggest problem, both for Romney and for those who suggest that his Mormonism disqualifies him from seeking office, is that his statement is nakedly unconstitutional, directly contradicting Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Romney's statement that "We need to have a person of faith lead the country" directly contradicts the latter half of that sentence, thus disqualifying Romney himself according to the first half.

In the Roman Catholic Church, Papal encyclicals are written, primarily, for members of that church, but they are addressed more broadly, more expansively and inclusively. John Paul II's Laborem exercens begins typically:

To His Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, to the Priests, to the Religious Families, to the sons and daughters of the Church, and to all Men and Women of good will …

I like that phrase — "people of good will" — and very much prefer it to "people of faith." It's a much more inclusive formula, and it does not imply or impose an unconstitutional religious test. But of course those very things are why this phrase would not be an acceptable substitute for people who prefer the other.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* See earlier, Under God-related program activities"

** Leading many VV/PoF types to conclude that I must not "really" be an evangelical Christian. I'd love to sit down with them over a couple of beers to talk about this, but unfortunately my fondness for said beverages only creates further problems.